I thought this was good. They shoot themselves in the foot again.
Neandertals and Modern Humans"Friendly Neighbors or Bitter Rivals?
by Brad Harrub, Ph.D.
What is an evolutionist to do if he or she is confronted unexpectedly with fossil evidence that disproves a long-held theory? If you are like many evolutionists, you simply get out your erasers and begin to rearrange the theory to fit the newly found evidence. And so with swiftness and determination, the legend woven around Neandertals gets untangled and rebraided into a new narrative.
For many years, evolutionists taught that Neandertals were brawny, prehistoric creatures that used primitive stone tools, whereas "modern" humans descendants were more sophisticated. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language uses words such as crude, boorish, and slow-witted to describe this species. However, the facts are slowly becoming known, and they are requiring a renovation of that definition.
In the March 2, 2001 issue of Science, Ann Gibbons authored an article titled The Riddle of Coexistence (Gibbons, 2001). The author begins with a dramatic opening, asking the reader to imagine forty thousand years ago when "our ancestors wandered into Europe and met another type of human already living there, the brawny, big-brained Neandertals" (p. 1725). She then goes on to state that "such a collision between groups of humans must have happened many times" (p. 1725). Can"t you just picture that introduction? "Hi, I"m Neandertal Man." Reply: "Nice to meet you Mr. Neandertal, I"m Modern Man."
This "collision" of two groups was necessitated by recent fossil findings that place Neandertals and modern humans in the same place at the same time. Scientists dated the remains of anatomically modern humans from caves at Qafzeh and Skhul in Israel, and found them to be 92,000 to 100,000 years old according to their measuring techniques. However, this is 40,000 years before the fossil record has Neandertals inhabiting the neighboring cave of Kebara, only 100 meters away from Skhul!
The article continues by stating that the real story from archaeological and fossil records suggests that Neandertals were neither stupid nor easily driven to extinction. Previously, researchers believed that the disappearance of Neandertals occurred aound the time sophisticated tools appeared, and therefore anthropologists concluded that the Neandertals had evolved into a more advanced species of humans (Homo sapiens). However with the fossil record placing "modern" humans in Oafzeh and Skhul 40,000 years before Neandertals, this would mean Neandertals came after modern humans.
This recent theory of coexistence in the Mediterranean is shared by others who have written books about the two groups coexisting in Europe for at least several thousand years (Bar-Yosef and Pilbeam, 2000; Stringer, et al., 2000). Most researchers conclude that although Neandertals and "modern" humans coexisted in specified areas, the Neandertals were "replaced, with little or no interbreeding, by modern humans" (p. 1725).
But if they coexisted, and if there were in fact two distinct groups, then what became of the other group? Without any scientific data, Gibbons is left to speculate that "modern" humans were the survivors because they had a clear technological and cultural advantage in Europe." She then suggests that there is no doubt "the modern humans" lifestyle quickly surpassed that of the Neandertals. Soon after they arrived in Europe, the modern newcomers made barbed projectile points and bone needles, painted vivid scenes on cave walls, carved animals out of ivory, and adorned themselves with bone pendants" (p. 1726). In describing the competition between modern humans and Neandertals, Steve Kuhn, archaeologist of the University of Arizona stated: "It was not a blitzkrieg." Gibbons" article goes on to state: "There are no signs of war or rapid replacement." Jean-Jacques Hublin of the University of Bordeaux in France commented: "It"s not like one group was gradually digested by another one. They maintain their own identity for millennia."
So we now are asked to believe that these two groups coexisted for hundreds of years, but that the competition with "modern" humans was simply too great and therefore the Neandertals eventually just "vanished." I suppose many researchers are not cognizant of the fact that people long ago had variations in stature and bone structure just as we have today, and thus these "two distinct groups" are actually one group that utilized various tools and jewelry just as we do today. As American humorist Mark Twain once wrote in Life on the Mississippi: "There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact"
This recent theory of coexistence in the Mediterranean is shared by others who have written books about the two groups coexisting in Europe for at least several thousand years (Bar-Yosef and Pilbeam, 2000; Stringer, et al., 2000). Most researchers conclude that although Neandertals and "modern" humans coexisted in specified areas, the Neandertals were "replaced, with little or no interbreeding, by modern humans" (p. 1725).
Good post Moose. "the neanderthals were replaced with little or no interbreeding...."
Well, perhaps the neanderthal women were very ugly!!
Just a silly thought.
I have a couple questions for the Christians on the board. I understand most/all of you disagree with evolution. (Just so we're clear I am not an evolutionist either)
What is your stance on Neanertals, cro mags and such? Do you believe they existed and if you do is your stance that they were just tool using thinking feeling animals. (like large chimps?)
In Asatru it is written that there were other races ie: Giants,dwarves,elves and such. it is my personal belief that is is these races which were neandertals, cro magnums and such.
I know this isn't scientific fact but hey religious, spiritual beliefs are not easily proveable scientifically even though little by little over time things are proven.
whats your thoughts?
__________________
The steel must suffer to become the blade.
There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact"
This from a drunkin writer of fiction?
__________________
Let others praise ancient times; I am glad I was born in these.-- Ovid (43 B.C.-A.D. 18)
Things ain't what they used to be and probably never was. ~Will Rogers
Tomorrow hopes we have learned something from yesterday.
"Shouldn't someone tag Mr. Kennedy's 'bold new imaginative program' with its proper age?" "Under the tousled boyish haircut it is still old Karl Marxfirst launched a century ago.
There is nothing new in the idea of a government being Big Brother to us all. R.Reagan-1960
However with the fossil record placing "modern" humans in Oafzeh and Skhul 40,000 years before Neandertals, this would mean Neandertals came after modern humans
40,000 yes - & they all lived in a world in a univerise that was here long before them, but it is only 6-8,000 yrs old total? sure thing - and its all a conspiracy all the many dates put out from the many diffenent sciences- that tell otherwise= because they all work for the devil?[]
Its all making sense now.
__________________
Let others praise ancient times; I am glad I was born in these.-- Ovid (43 B.C.-A.D. 18)
Things ain't what they used to be and probably never was. ~Will Rogers
Tomorrow hopes we have learned something from yesterday.
"Shouldn't someone tag Mr. Kennedy's 'bold new imaginative program' with its proper age?" "Under the tousled boyish haircut it is still old Karl Marxfirst launched a century ago.
There is nothing new in the idea of a government being Big Brother to us all. R.Reagan-1960
What is an evolutionist to do if he or she is confronted unexpectedly with fossil evidence that disproves a long-held theory? If you are like many evolutionists, you simply get out your erasers and begin to rearrange the theory to fit the newly found evidence. And so with swiftness and determination, the legend woven around Neandertals gets untangled and rebraided into a new narrative.
This is precisely what makes science distinct from religion. There are rarely any final answers in science and when the currently held theory begins to disagree with observation than it is time to modify the theory. For centuries Newton's Theory of Gravitation and Galileo's Theory of Relativity were accepted as true because they agreed with observation. In the early 20'th century when discrepencies with observation of objects in strong gravitational fields and travelling at speeds approaching the speed of light appeared, Einstein developed new theories of Gravity and Relativity that agreed with the new observations. Newtonian gravity and Gallilean relativity are not wrong, they are simply special cases of a more encompassing theory.
That there might be fossil evidence that prior theories on the relationships between Homo Sapiens and Homo Neanderthalis may not have been complete in now way invalidates the theory of human evolution. What it does is force scientists to reevaluate old evidence and search for new evidence that might justify a modification of the theory which is the best explanation we have for human origins.
Religious dogma, being revealed truth, can not be modified no matter what new evidence is found that shows it to be wrong. That is what gets us into these absurd situations where some people believe the Earth is only 6000 years old despite abundant evidence to the contrary. This is where religious fundamentalists get it wrong when it comes to science. Scientists adjust their theories to conform to observations; religious fundamentalists change the observations to conform to their theories (dogma). This is why creationism, including Intelligent Design, has no place in a classroom. It violates the most basic principle of science.
This is why creationism, including Intelligent Design, has no place in a classroom. It violates the most basic principle of science.
Science violates the most basic principle of truth. I made 100's on evolution tests in school and I never put an answer that didn't use the bible in it.
What is your stance on Neanertals, cro mags and such?
Bearmaster--What most people haven't been told is that ALL of the supposed "steps" between apes and modern man have been disproven for some time. In most museums, your will see a number of these representations of the graduation phases -- each is simply a plaster cast of what is SUPPOSED. The problem is, they don't exist. Each and every step, cro-magnon, neanderthal, australopithicus, et al have been disproven. The one that they held up for so long "Lucy" is now known to have been a chimpanzee. The evolutionists never take their mistakes out of the textbooks becuase that would amount to an admission of guilt. I don't expect them to admit it here either.
__________________
Today' s small bucks are tomorrow' s trophies.
[image]http://www.whitetails.com/deer8.html[image]
Bearmaster--What most people haven't been told is that ALL of the supposed "steps" between apes and modern man have been disproven for some time. In most museums, your will see a number of these representations of the graduation phases -- each is simply a plaster cast of what is SUPPOSED. The problem is, they don't exist
This is a classic example of what I stated in my previous posts. While scientists adjusts their theories to accomodate the latest observations, religious fundamentalists simply deny the reality of the observations because they can not change their dogma to accomodate new discoveries. The steps, represented in fossils from early hominids exist. Every scientist, except the way out of the mainstream, thoughly discredited creations scientists (an oxymoron if there ever was one) know these fossils exist and recognize the significance of them. That is why when you pick up respectable peer-reviewed journals like "Science" or "Nature" you read about these scientifiic findings, not the absurdities of the creationists.
Neandertals and Modern Humans
]
